Summary 2014 WY 33

Summary of Decision March 5, 2014

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: BENNIE JOHNSON v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0115

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County the Honorable Nena James, Judge

Representing Appellant: Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Peter Howard, Legal Intern.

Date of Decision: March 5, 2014

Facts: The State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) denied Bennie Johnson’s requests for preauthorization of bilateral total knee replacements and payment of other medical bills associated with his knees on the grounds the current condition of his knees was not related to a 1992 work injury. The Medical Commission held a contested case hearing and upheld the Division’s decision. During the hearing it admitted into evidence, over Mr. Johnson’s objection, three exhibits.

Issues: Mr. Johnson presents the following issues for this Court’s consideration: ISSUE I. Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously or otherwise not in accordance with the law when it admitted into evidence unreliable and irrelevant evidence over objection. ISSUE II. Whether the [Medical Commission’s] decision is supported by substantial evidence. The Division presents the same issues, although they are phrased differently.

Holdings/Conclusion: We conclude the Medical Commission did not commit prejudicial error by admitting the exhibits and substantial evidence supports its decision. We, therefore, affirm.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summary 2013 WY 127

Summary of Decision October 11, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: HAROLD F. “BUTCH” VANDRE, JR., and CARMEN VANDRE, husband and wife v. JASON KUZNIA and JARED “CUB” SJULESTAD

Docket Number: S-13-0020

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County the Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Appellants: Nathaniel S. Hibben and Herbert K. Doby, Torrington, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Hibben.

Representing Appellees: Stephenson D. Emery of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: October 11, 2013

Facts: Harold F. “Butch” Vandre, Jr. was severely injured while working for McMurry Ready Mix on a road paving project in Sublette County. He and his wife (collectively “appellants”) filed suit against, inter alia, two co-employee supervisors claiming their willful and wanton misconduct was the cause of the resulting injuries. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the co-employee supervisors, determining they did not intentionally act to cause physical harm, as defined under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-104(a).

Issues: Did the district court err in finding the undisputed material facts failed to establish that the co-employee supervisors possessed knowledge of the hazard or serious nature of the risks that led to the appellant’s injury and willfully disregarded the need to act despite the awareness of the high probability that serious injury may result?

Holdings: No genuine issues of material fact exist and the co-employee supervisors are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The undisputed facts in this case simply do not demonstrate the type of conduct necessary to impose co-employee liability under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-104(a). Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summary 2013 WY 100

Summary of Decision August 22, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: MARSHALL S. LITTLE v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0268

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant: Donna D. Domonkos, Attorney at Law, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Michael T. Kahler, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: August 22, 2013

Facts: Appellant Marshall S. Little suffered a lower back injury when he was drawn into a mixing chute of a hot mix plant used by the paving company he worked for in 1988. He underwent a lumbar surgery in 1989. His condition improved in the early 1990s, and he did not require treatment for his back injury for several years. In 2007, he began seeing an internist, who diagnosed him with an arthritic hip and recommended a hip replacement. Mr. Little submitted a bill for $87.00 for the office visit to the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division). The Division declined to pay the bill because it believed the hip condition to be unrelated to the original work injury. Mr. Little objected and requested a contested case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The OAH hearing examiner found that Mr. Little was not entitled to benefits for a second compensable injury, relying on an orthopedic surgeon’s evaluation that the arthritic hip was not relatedto the original compensable injury. The district court affirmed.

Issues: Does substantial evidence support the hearing examiner’s decision that Mr. Little was not entitled to benefits for a second compensable hip injury?

Holdings: Mr. Little met his burden of producing competent evidence to demonstrate a causal link between his compensable work injury and the arthritis in his hip nearly twenty years later. However, he failed to carry the burden of persuasion because the hearing examiner chose to believe the report of an orthopedic surgeon, which found no causallink between the original injury and the arthritis in his hip. Substantial evidence supports the hearing examiner’s findings. Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summary 2013 WY 86

Summary of Decision, July 16, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: NICHOLAS A. PICOZZI v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0254

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant: James C. Worthen of Murane & Bostwick, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy
Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 16, 2013

Facts: Nicholas Picozzi, the appellant, injured his neck in a compensable work-related accident. After receiving temporary total disability benefits for thirty-six months, the appellant underwent shoulder surgery. The appellant applied to the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) for additional benefits, arguing that the shoulder injury was a second compensable injury and he, therefore, was entitled to a separate period of benefits. Although the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) agreed, the district court rejected that argument. The appellant now appeals that decision and also argues in the alternative that equitable estoppel prohibits enforcement of the thirty-six month limitation.

Issues: Did the OAH hearing examiner err as a matter of law by granting the appellant’s application for temporary total disability benefits? Is the Division equitably estopped from enforcing the thirty-six month limitation on receipt of temporary total disability benefits?

Holdings: The appellant received temporary total disability benefits for thirty-six months as a result of work-related injury to his neck. After the thirty-six months expired, the appellant underwent shoulder surgery. Because the appellant’s shoulder injury was a result of the same accident that caused his neck injury, he is not entitled to an additional period of benefits. Equitable estoppel does not prevent the enforcement of the thirty-six month limitation because the appellant did not detrimentally rely upon an action by the Division. We affirm the district’s court’s decision, finding that the appellant was not entitled to further benefits.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summary 2013 WY 81

Summary of Decision July 9, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: DAVID GREEN v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0238

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant: James R. Salisbury of Riske & Salisbury, P.C., Cheyenne, WY.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Matthias L. Sayer, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 9, 2013

Facts: David Green (Green) suffered a work-related injury to his lumbar spine in 2004 and received workers’ compensation benefits for that injury. After surgery and reaching maximum medical improvement in 2005, Green accepted compensation for a 21% whole body permanent partial impairment (PPI). In 2010, following increased back pain, Green underwent additional surgery to his lumbar spine, for which he again received medical and temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. After reaching maximum medical improvement following the 2010 surgery, Green was again evaluated for a whole body PPI rating. The final rating was a 7% whole body PPI.

Because the 2010 PPI evaluation resulted in a rating that was less than the 2005 rating, the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) issued a final determination denying a PPI award beyond the 21% already paid. Green appealed the Division’s determination to the Wyoming Medical Commission (Commission). The Commission upheld the Division’s determination, and the district court affirmed the Commission’s decision. On appeal to this Court, Green argues that the Commission’s decision is not in accordance with law, is not supported by substantial evidence, and is arbitrary and capricious.

Issues: Green states the issues for our review as follows:

Whether the Hearing Panel committed an error of law in its application of Wyoming Statute § 27-14-405(f) and (g) in denying [Green] permanent partial impairment benefits. Whether the Hearing Panel Order is supported by substantial evidence and produces an arbitrary and capricious result to deny [Green] permanent partial impairment benefits.

Holdings: The Commission’s denial of Green’s request for a higher PPI rating is supported by the record and in accordance with law. Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summary 2012 WY 117

Summary of Decision September 7, 2012

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: TODD ROGERS, AN EMPLOYEE OF R.A. MANNING CONSTRUCTION v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0001

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, Honorable Timothy C. Day, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Jack D. Edwards of Edwards Law Office, P.C., Etna, WY.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: September 7, 2012

Facts:  Todd Rogers challenged an order from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) denying benefits to him for lower back treatment.  The OAH ruled that Rogers did not prove his 2010 condition was related to his 2002 work injury.  Affirmed.

Issues:  Rogers phrases his single issue as follows:

           

1.      Did the hearing examiner error [sic], as a matter of law, in concluding that Mr. Rogers failed to meet his burden of proof that his 2010 injuries are related to his 2002 work injury?

 

Holdings:  The evidence presented at the hearing, in light of the testimony presented and other facts in the record, supported the hearing examiner’s conclusion that Rogers did not meet his burden of proving that his 2010 treatment was the result of his 2002 work-related injuries.  The OAH decision was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and was, therefore, supported by substantial evidence in the record.  Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summary 2012 WY 6

Summary of Decision January 12, 2012

[SPECIAL NOTE:  This opinion uses the "Universal Citation."  It was given an "official" citation when it is issued.  You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation.  You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered.  When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number.  The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance] 

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name:  Davenport v. State of Wyo., ex. rel., Wyo. Workers’ Safety and Compensation Div.

Citation:  2012 WY 6

Docket Number: S-11-0121

URL:  http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465013

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, The Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner/Claimant):  George Santini of Ross, Ross & Santini, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent):  Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: January 12, 2012

Facts:  In 2008-2009, Appellant sought worker’s compensation benefits for medical care and surgery to fuse vertebrae in his lumbar spine, claiming that his surgery was a direct result of 1984/1985 work related injuries. Appellant had a long history of back problems, including various complaints and injuries between 1986 and 2008.  Appellee (Division) denied benefits on the basis that his 2008-2009 back problems were not caused by work related injuries he suffered in 1984 and 1985.  After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division’s denial of benefits, ruling that the procedure was necessitated by a preexisting congenital defect in Appellant’s lumbar spine and not his prior work related injuries.  Appellant petitioned for judicial review and the district court affirmed the OAH decision.  He timely appealed to this Court claiming the OAH erred by failing to recognize that an aggravation of a preexisting congenital defect is compensable and misapplied the second compensable injury rule.

Issues:  Appellant presented the following issues: 1) Whether the Hearing Officer erred by not recognizing that a material aggravation of a preexisting or congenital condition is a compensable injury and that the delayed effects of such aggravation are also compensable; and 2) Whether the second compensable injury rule was misapplied by the Hearing Officer.  Appellee stated the issue more generally: Whether substantial evidence supported the OAH’s decision that Appellant failed to prove a causal connection between his 1984 and 1985 work injuries and his 2008 lumbar symptoms and bi-level fusion surgery.

Holdings:  Affirmed.  The Court found that even had Appellant suffered an aggravation of his preexisting congenital condition in 1984/1985, that does not necessarily mean the aggravation caused the condition which required surgery in 2009.  Appellant was obligated to establish that causal connection by a preponderance of the evidence.  The evidence that Appellant worked at various jobs, was involved in several quite serious accidents and did not seek medical attention for his lower back for many years after the work related injuries, together with expert opinion, supported the hearing examiner’s conclusion that Appellant did not meet his burden of proving that his 2008-2009 treatment was the result of his 1984/1985 work related injuries.  The OAH decision is not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and is, therefore, supported by substantial evidence in the record.  

C.J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2011 WY 98

Summary of Decision June 23, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE:  This opinion uses the "Universal Citation."  It was given an "official" citation when it is issued.  You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation.  You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered.  When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number.  The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance] 

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name:  Van Patten v. Gipson

Citation:  2011 WY 98                      

Docket Number: S-10-0202   

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=463288

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, The Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff):  S. Joseph Darrah and Christopher M. Brown of Darrah, Darrah & Brown, P.C., Powell, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. Darrah.

Representing Appellee (Defendant):  Jason A. Neville and Keith J. Dodson of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. Dodson.

Date of Decision: June 23, 2011

Facts:  Appellant worked as an entry level floorman.  The co-employees worked as driller and direct supervisor of the rig crew, as assistant driller and as derrickman.  All were working on a rig in Sublette County, Wyoming.  On the day of the incident, the rig manager directed the driller/supervisor and his crew to pressure wash the derrick during their shift.  The crew went to the driller’s cabin where they discussed the operation and filled out a job safety analysis and personnel hoisting pre-job checklist for washing the derrick.   Appellant was told to put on the manrider, a harness worn around the torso with a board attached to it to sit on.  The manrider was hooked to the tugger line, which ran from a hydraulic hoist located on the rig floor up through the derrickboard to the top of the derrick and back down.  At some point after Appellant was in the manrider but still on the rig floor, the crew realized the tugger line would need to be freed or else Appellant could not reach parts of the derrick with the pressure washer.  It was decided to raise Appellant in the manrider up under the derrickboard to open the storm gate and release the tugger line.  At the time, no one filled out a job safety analysis or personnel hoisting pre-job checklist for using the manrider to open the storm gate and free the tugger line. 

The derrickman operated the hoist to lift Appellant up beneath the derrickboard.  The derrickman lost sight of Appellant and asked the assistant driller to spot for him.  As Appellant was attempting to open the storm gate to release the cable, the assistant driller thought he saw him give the signal to be raised up.  The assistant driller signaled to the derrickman to hoist Appellant up.  As this was done, Appellant was pulled into the derrickboard and sustained a compression fracture in his thoracic spine.

The company investigated the accident and concluded the crew, and specifically the driller/supervisor, violated company procedure by allowing Appellant to be lifted to the derrickboard to open the storm gate and free the tugger line without filling out a personnel hoisting pre-job checklist.  The company docked the driller’s pay.  No action was taken against any other employees involved in the incident.  

Appellant filed a complaint alleging his co-employees acted recklessly, willfully and wantonly in various ways, including failing to perform a job safety analysis or obtain a permit before hoisting him in the manrider to release the tugger line, failing to instruct him on proper procedure for opening the storm gate, using the manrider instead of the ladder to ascend the derrick and open the storm gate, and operating the hydraulic hoist when he was under the derrickboard.  The co-employees answered the complaint and the parties proceeded with discovery.  The co-employees then filed a motion for summary judgment alleging there were no genuine issues of material fact supporting the claim that they acted willfully and wantonly and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  The district court convened a hearing and, after considering the parties’ respective positions, granted the co-employees’ motion.  Appellant timely appealed.               

Issues: 1) Whether the district court correctly held the co-employees' conduct did not constitute willful and wanton misconduct; 2) Whether the district court correctly found their violations of the company’s policies did not amount to willful and wanton misconduct; and 3) Whether the district court correctly held that their individual acts could not be combined to establish willful and wanton misconduct on the part of each of them.   

Holdings: 

The Court affirmed the order granting summary judgment to the co-employees.      

The Court found there was no evidence in the present case that Appellant said he would not use the manrider to free the tugger line, pointed out the danger of doing so or expressed concern for his safety.  Furthermore, evidence was presented in this case that other workers had used the manrider to unlock the storm gate.  And while there seems to be no question that the company’s written policies authorized use of the manrider only when there was no alternative, evidence was presented that it was fairly common practice to use it to open the storm gate.  Moreover, the co-employees here had no warning about the danger by the:  (1) injury of another employee; (2) refusal of other employees to work in the area; and, (3) expressions of concern to supervisors by still other employees.  The court noted that Appellant relied heavily on the company’s written policies and after the fact statements by upper level employees who were not present on the rig or involved in using a manrider.  In light of the testimony of those who were involved, these policies and statements did not establish a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether the co-employees knew the operation was dangerous and intentionally disregarded the danger.  Affirmed.

  

C.J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court. 

Summary 2011 WY 49

Summary of Decision March 21, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Watkins v. State

Citation: 2011 WY 49

Docket Number: S-10-0129

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461832

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Claimant): Bill G. Hibbler of Bill G. Hibbler, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James M. Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2011

Facts: The Appellant felt a pop in his back and began experiencing pain after he jumped down from his work truck. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for a period of time and then eventually terminated those benefits. The Division’s denial of benefits was affirmed in a contested case hearing before the Wyoming Medical Commission and the Appellant appealed from that decision.

Issue: Whether the Commission’s determination that the Appellant did not meet his burden of proving he was entitled to further TTD benefits was supported by substantial evidence.

Holdings: The Appellant’s January 2, 2007, injury (back pain arising after he jumped down from his truck) was work-related and compensable. The question presented was whether there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s determination that the Appellant was no longer entitled to TTD benefits after May 21, 2007―the date of the Appellant’s IME. The Appellant claimed that there was a “total lack of substantial evidence” to support the Commission’s determination that his condition had stabilized on that date such that he should not receive additional TTD benefits. The Commission’s determination that the Appellant did not meet his burden of proving he was entitled to further TTD benefits was supported by substantial evidence. Based on the facts presented, the Court found that the Commission could have reasonably concluded as it did. Affirmed.

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court.

Justice Hill filed a dissenting opinion.

The dissenting opinion concluded that when the Court deletes from consideration what amounts to idle speculation on the part of the hearing panel, as well as inaccurate, incomplete and/or insubstantial findings, the denial of benefits in this case could not stand.

The dissenting opinion would reverse the order of the district court and remand the case to that court with further directions that it be remanded to the Medical Commission for the purpose of it directing the Division to award Appellant any and all medical benefits and disability awards that are due him for the work-related injury that occurred on January 2, 2007.

Summary 2010 WY 166

Summary of Decision December 17, 2010

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Johnson v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division

Citation: 2010 WY 166

Docket Number: S-10-0098

URL: http://tinyurl.com/2c24njt

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Kenneth DeCock of Plains Law Offices, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: December 17, 2010

Facts: Appellant challenges a Medical Commission decision denying her preauthorization for shoulder surgery, after the Wyoming Workers’ Safety & Compensation Division (Division) granted her benefits for both shoulders.

Issues: Whether the Medical Commission had jurisdiction to address the issue of the compensability of the original injury after the employer and the Division agreed the injury was compensable and the Division paid benefits toward the injury.


Holdings: Each of Appellant’s claims are independent of each other, regardless of whether her case remains open with the Division. Receiving a prior award of benefits for her right shoulder did not guarantee Appellant future benefits for her left shoulder. Whenever there is an application for new benefits, the Division may require the claimant to illustrate that the injury was work-related. Contrary to Appellant’s argument that the Medical Commission lacked jurisdiction over the question of whether she sustained a work-related injury, the actual determination made by the Medical Commission was whether or not her shoulder surgery should be covered. Because Appellant did not show her left shoulder surgery was related to her employment, her claim was properly denied. The legislature did not intend the Division’s uncontested award of benefits to rise to the level of a ‘final adjudication’ necessary to apply the doctrine of issue preclusion to outstanding claims for worker’s compensation benefits.

The Medical Commission had jurisdiction to address the issue of the compensability of Appellant’s original injury.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2010 WY 128

Summary of Decision issued September 22, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Ball v. State, ex rel., Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div.

Citation: 2010 WY 128

Docket Number: S-09-0165

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge.

Representing Ball: George Santini of Ross, Ross & Santini, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James M. Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Cara Boyle Chambers, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Ball appealed the district court decision reversing an OAH order awarding benefits for medical treatments Ball received for a hernia. Ball suffered the hernia when a spinal cord stimulator, implanted to treat chronic back pain form an earlier compensable work-related injury, malfunctioned and shocked him causing him to stand rapidly and then fall.

Second compensable injury rule: The Division contended the second compensable injury rule is a common law remedy that conflicts with the hernia statute and thus cannot be applied to a hernia injury. The Court disagreed. Under the second compensable injury rule, a subsequent injury or condition is compensable if it is causally linked to the initial compensable injury. It is a causation analysis and not a court-created benefit or remedy.
Hernia statute: The hernia statute unambiguously requires an employee’s injury to satisfy all criteria in the statute to be compensable. The statute does not create any exceptions to its application, and the Court would have to read terms into the statute to create an exception for hernias that are second compensable injuries. The present dispute is centered on the meaning of the phrase: “in the course of employment” as it is used in the third element of the hernia statute. Ball contended that the phrase meant a hernia is compensable if it is found to be causally related to the employee’s original work injury, assuming all of the other elements of the statute are met. The Division contended that the phrase meant the hernia must have been the original injury and must have occurred in the workplace to be compensable. The Court found Ball’s position to be the more persuasive as it is in keeping with the plain language and context of the hernia statute as well as the legislative intent. The Division’s proposed bright line rule, that a hernia must occur in the workplace and be the original work injury, disregarded the merits of an actual causal relationship between a hernia injury and the employee’s work and thus achieved a result opposite of that intended by the legislature.
Quasi-employment doctrine: The hearing examiner did not rely on the quasi-employment doctrine in finding a causal connection between Ball’s original work injury and his hernia. There was therefore, no error related to that doctrine.

Conclusion: The hearing examiner’s finding that the authorized medical treatment for Ball’s original work injury caused his subsequent hernia is uncontested, and the district court erred in holding that benefits were barred on the ground that the second compensable injury rule could not be applied.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2ft9mf2 .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2010 WY 103

Summary of Decision issued July 28, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Herrera v. State, ex rel., Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div.

Citation: 2010 WY 103

Docket Number: S-09-0191

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Jere A. Ryckman, Judge.

Representing Herrera: Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristen J. Hanna, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: After sustaining a work-related injury ultimately requiring amputation of his right index finger, Herrera began taking an anti-depressant medication. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) paid for the medication for two years and then denied further payment. Herrera objected and, after a contested case hearing, the OAH awarded him benefits. The Division sought review in district court and the district court reversed the award.
Herrera contended the OAH’s determination that he was entitled to benefits was supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. He pointed to his testimony that his physician prescribed Lexapro for pain, numbness and depression. He noted that when he stopped taking the drug, his pain increased, which caused his blood pressure to rise and when he resumed taking it, those physical symptoms subsided. The Division contended the evidence showed Lexapro was prescribed to treat Herrera’s agitation, stress, anxiety and depression. The Division contended that Herrera had the burden of proving that Lexapro was for treatment of physical injuries in the absence of a mental health diagnosis. Previous cases have not required the Court to consider the question of whether substantial evidence supported the OAH’s findings and conclusions that medication prescribed for a mental injury was also prescribed to treat a claimant’s physical injury, making § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(J) inapplicable. The Court agreed with a recent Louisiana decision which held that the statute applied only when the claimant was alleged to be disabled as the result of a mental injury or illness.
The Division asserted the district court properly reversed the ruling because the OAH relied almost exclusively on Herrera’s testimony. The Court stated again that the testimony of an injured worker alone is sufficient to prove an accident if there is nothing to impeach or discredit the worker’s testimony, and the worker’s statements are corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Here, the Division presented no evidence to impeach or discredit Herrera’s testimony and his testimony was corroborated by medical records showing that he was treated with Lexapro for pain and numbness, as well as for depression.

Conclusion: There was no dispute concerning the incident that caused Herrera’s injury; therefore medical testimony was not required to establish that causal connection. The only question was whether Lexapro was prescribed solely to treat mental injuries or whether it was intended to treat Herrera’s physical injury, specifically the pain and high blood pressure caused by the pain. Through his own testimony, Herrera sufficiently established that the Lexapro treated his physical injuries.

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the OAH’s order awarding benefits.

C.J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/24ezj4d .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2010 WY 39

Summary of Decision issued April 1, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Alphin v. State ex rel., Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div.

Citation: 2010 WY 39

Docket Number: S-09-0085

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, the Honorable Marv Tyler, Judge.

Representing Appellant Alphin: Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; and James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Alphin challenged the order of the district court which affirmed the “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order” issued by a hearing examiner for the OAH. Alphin was injured on the job in 2005. His employer, Black Horse Construction, Inc. convinced him to seek medical treatment outside the constraints of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The employer paid for his treatment for a short time, but fired him because he was unable to work and then discontinued making payments on his behalf. In mid-2006, Alphin filed a claim for benefits.

Substantial evidence test: The hearing examiner’s credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence in the record. Alphin testified in person and contradicted his own testimony several times.
Burden of proof: Alphin had the burden of proof. He asserted he did not hurt his back until the time he went to work for Black Horse Construction but the medical evidence was not entirely consistent with his claims. Alphin argued that the only reasonable conclusion that could be reached given the record was that a blow from a backhoe such as the one he suffered required that the fact-finder accept as a given that Alphin must have suffered the sort of back injury he claims to have sustained. The Court stated its inquiry revealed that the facts and circumstances of the instant case do not merit bringing “res ipsa loquitor” to bear.
Arbitrary and capricious standard: Alphin contended that his ability to successfully prosecute his claim for worker’s compensation benefits was so hampered by his side deal with Black Horse and his subsequent inability to get timely medical attention for his back problems, that the Court should apply the arbitrary and capricious safety net described in Dale. The Court concluded that Alphin’s circumstances were not ones that called into play that safety net.

Conclusion: The Court stated there was substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision to reject the evidence offered by Alphin after considering whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole. The Court concluded that the circumstances in the instant case did not call the Dale “safety net” into play.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yaq4yhc .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2009 WY 110

Summary of Decision issued September 3, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: State v. Kaczmarek

Citation: 2009 WY 110

Docket Number: S-08-0208; S-08-0209

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Nena R. James, Judge.

Representing Appellant State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellant Canon Oil: Clark D. Stith and Melissa J. Lyon of Rock Springs, Wyoming.

Representing Kaczmarek: James R. Salisbury of Riske, Salisbury & Kelly, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Kaczmarek applied to the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) for reimbursement of medical expenses relating to his back surgery in 2006 claiming that the surgery was related to injuries sustained in a 1979 work-related accident.

Proper burden of proof: In a second compensable injury case, the claimant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that it was more probable than not that there existed a causal connection between the first and second injuries. The hearing examiner explicitly acknowledged the stricter burden of proof in § 27-14-605 and that Kaczmarek was only required to show the causal connection to a reasonable degree of medical probability rather than that the second injury was due “solely” to the original compensable injury.

Against the great weight of evidence: Kaczmarek relied on expert testimony from two physicians. The testimony did not establish that it was more probable than not that the first injury was causally related to the second injury. The hearing examiner concluded that there was no competent medical evidence which demonstrated that Kaczmarek’s current chronic low back pain and herniated disc were directly related to the 1979 work injury. Without some evidence or testimony showing it was more probable than not that the second injury was caused by the first, the claimant could not satisfy his burden of proof.

Conclusion: The Court found as a matter of law that the hearing examiner used the proper burden of proof when deciding whether Kaczmarek was entitled to benefits under the second compensable injury rule. Also, the Court held that the hearing examiner’s conclusion that Kaczmarek was unable to prove that his 2006 condition was related to the 1979 injury was supported by substantial evidence.

Reversed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/mn7yas .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2008 WY 125

Summary of Decision issued October 10, 2008

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: State ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div. v. Baldwin

Citation: 2008 WY 125

Docket Number: S-07-0284

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Nen R. James, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristi M. Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee: Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyomng.

Facts/Discussion: Appellee Baldwin suffered a work-related injury and temporary total disability benefits were approved. After receiving a partial impairment rating, Baldwin applied for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. The Division denied benefits on the ground that he could return to his previous employment. The Division does not dispute that Baldwin was injured or that his injuries were work-related, rather the Division takes exception to the hearing examiner’s award of PPD benefits.

Actively Sought Suitable Work: The evidence presented at the contested hearing supports the conclusion that Baldwin sought employment since his injury. The hearing examiner cited to an older version of the definition of “actively seeking work.” However, his application of the rule was consistent with the proper definition.
Return to Work at 95% of Pre-injury Wage: Baldwin was earning $17.00 per hour when he was injured. To qualify for PPD, he was required to show that he was unable to secure employment at a wage equal to 95% of his pre-injury pay. There was conflicting medical evidence concerning Baldwin’s physical limitations. It was the finder of facts’ duty to weigh the evidence and resolve such conflicts. The hearing examiner addressed the conflicting evidence when he discounted one doctor’s opinion because of its lack of detail and accepted the restrictions imposed by a second doctor. The Division also asserted that the hearing examiner failed properly to consider the vocational evaluation. The Court’s review of the hearing examiner’s determination that Baldwin could not return to employment at 95% of his pre-injury wage was supported by substantial evidence.

Holding: The hearing examiner’s findings that Baldwin was actively seeking suitable employment and that he was unable to return to work at a job paying 95% of his pre-injury wage were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3zuwa8

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2008 WY 117

Summary of Decision issued October 7, 2008

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Bush v. State, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div.

Citation: 2008 WY 117

Docket Number: S-07-0226

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, the Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge.

Representing Appellant Bush: David M. Gosar of Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristi M. Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: This was an appeal from the district court’s affirmance of an Order of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) denying the appellant’s claim for worker’s compensation benefits.

Timeliness: Wyoming statutes provide that an injured employee must report their injury to the employer within 72 hours after the injury becomes apparent and to the Division within ten days. Failure to comply results in a presumption that the claim shall be denied unless the employee can show clear and convincing evidence that the delay did not prejudice the employer or the Division in their investigation. In its first Order Denying Benefits, the OAH found that the appellant did not timely report. That Order was vacated by the Court’s decision in Bush I. In the second go-round, the hearing examiner entered a more fully detailed Order in which benefits were denied solely based upon the conclusion that the appellant had not met his burden of proving that the injury was work-related. The Division contended that the issue of timeliness had survived but the Court did not agree. Because untimely reporting and filing create only an evidentiary presumption, rather than a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court did not need to raise or consider the issue. The Court determined that if the issue did survive the first go-round, the Division waived it below in the second go-round.
Substantial Evidence: The question was whether the appellant proved that his injury occurred at work. The hearing examiner characterized the conflict in the evidence as a credibility contest. The Court stated that the overwhelming weight of the evidence did not support the appellant’s version of events. The Court found that substantial evidence in the record supported the conclusion that the appellant did not prove that the injury occurred at work on July 3.

Holding: The issues of the timeliness of the appellant’s reporting of his alleged work injury to his employer and the timeliness of his filing of an injury report with the Division played no part in the hearing officer’s decision in the case and were waived below by the Division. The hearing officer’s determination that the appellant did not prove that his injury was work-related was supported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/4q664n

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]